add_angle_mate

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description reveals behavioral traits: it enforces a fixed angle, uses right-hand-rule for rotation direction, and warns about solver rejection for coplanar entities. It also hints at parity with add_concentric_mate. Some details like permissions or side effects are omitted, but the disclosure is substantial.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long with bilingual text (Spanish and English), which adds redundancy. It is structured with sections (typical use, args, returns, gotcha, related) but could be more concise by removing the Spanish section or merging it. Every sentence provides value, but the bilingual duplication reduces efficiency.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the return metadata and mentions a key gotcha. However, it fails to document most parameters (5 out of 6 are vague). It does differentiate from sibling tools adequately. Coverage gaps leave the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains angle_deg (degrees, rotation rule). However, it defers other parameters to 'same as add_concentric_mate' without referencing that tool's description. The remaining 5 parameters (component names, entity IDs, align) are not explained, leaving significant ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it adds an angle mate (fixed angular offset) between two entities. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like add_coincident_mate and add_concentric_mate through typical use cases and entity type restrictions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly provides typical uses (chain-link, hinge angles, etc.), required entity types (planar or axes), forbidden cases (concentric cylindrical faces, coplanar entities), and mentions a related tool (add_mate_by_face_position) for alternative usage. This offers clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.